The Legislative Ranger
HB 163-165
11/24/2026
By: Stephen O’Toole
It’s a beautiful Sunday morning, and I’m eager to dive back into reviewing the bills submitted by the Representatives of this great state! Yesterday’s closing article was heavy, featuring two divisive and impactful pieces of legislation. I can only hope that the trend of 25% of bills being so polarizing doesn’t continue. Today, we’re starting off with a new trio of bills: House Bills 163, 164, and 165, authored by Reps. Philip Cortez [D-San Antonio], Diego Bernal [D-San Antonio], and Cody Vasut [R-Angleton], respectively. These bills cover topics related to medication requirements, migrant labor housing, and taxation.
HB163 is a short and straightforward bill addressing the possession and administration of epinephrine injectors. For those unfamiliar, epinephrine injectors, commonly known as EpiPens, are life-saving devices used during severe allergic reactions to buy time for medical care. Currently, Texas law outlines how these injectors must be stored, handled, and administered. This bill seeks to exempt entities already governed by other legal mandates from these specific requirements, preventing potential conflicts between overlapping laws. It’s a simple and practical adjustment that ensures clarity for entities under multiple legal obligations. While useful, I rate this bill as low priority and low danger.
HB164 takes a deeper dive into an important issue: migrant labor housing facilities. These facilities, which house more than one family of migrant workers, are already subject to regulations aimed at preventing unsafe and exploitative conditions. HB164 seeks to enhance these protections through several significant measures. First, it proposes scaling penalties for non-compliance from a flat $200 per violation to $50 per occupant per violation, ensuring penalties are proportional to the size and impact of the violation. This would help distinguish between minor infractions by small operators and systemic issues within larger, profit-driven organizations. Second, the bill expands reporting avenues, allowing not just occupants but also neighbors and external observers to file complaints. It also includes anti-retaliation protections for those who report violations and allows for the award of legal fees to prevailing parties in court cases. While these changes are likely to face resistance, especially from corporate interests, they represent a critical step in protecting workers. I rate this bill as low danger and moderate priority to pass.
HB165 is where things take a sharp turn. This bill seeks to eliminate ad valorem taxes—commonly known as property taxes—and establish a commission to propose alternative taxation methods. At first glance, the idea of eliminating property taxes may sound appealing. After all, no one enjoys paying property taxes, and even renters indirectly bear this burden through rent payments. However, the consequences of such a move are far-reaching and disproportionately beneficial to the wealthy. Property taxes are based on the value of land and property, meaning those who own more valuable property pay more. Eliminating this tax would result in massive savings for wealthy landowners while offering minimal relief to average citizens. Worse, the bill provides no clear plan to replace the lost revenue, merely tasking a commission with proposing alternatives by 2026. This vague and delayed approach risks creating a fiscal crisis as the 2035 repeal deadline approaches. Instead of repealing property taxes, we should consider scaling them to reduce the burden on lower-value properties while increasing rates for high-value or multiple-property owners. Passing a bill that repeals a critical revenue stream without a replacement plan in place is reckless and irresponsible. I rate this bill as highly dangerous and a top priority to fight against.
This trio of bills covers a wide spectrum: addressing redundant legal standards for life-saving medication, improving living standards for migrant workers, and recklessly repealing property taxes without a replacement plan. While HB163 and HB164 are reasonable and beneficial, HB165 poses a significant threat to the state’s financial stability and equity. Property tax reform should aim to narrow the income gap, not widen it, and should never be undertaken without a clear and actionable replacement strategy. A partisan commission with no binding authority is not the solution.
This is why the eyes of the Ranger remain upon these bills.
Comments